|
Saturday March 11, 2006 Update
Commentary on the proceedings that occurred in the US House on 3-8-06
regarding "the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act" (HR 4472).
|
Comments reference the transcript available above:
Political Name Calling:
The transcript is tough to study because of all the name calling by various supporters of the bill. For some reason they seem to find a need to make people sound bad or worse than they are. It makes one wonder if they even understand the meaning of the words. However, the press will be reading the transcript and I can only guess the name calling is simply to gather more supporters via the media when they republish comments.
Our comments will address issues related to the Transcript's color coded text.
Throughout the transcript are references to "loopholes in the system," I can only interpret that to mean some are following the letter of the law. However, it appears that Members feel the "letter of the law" has a different meaning than as interpreted by registrants who are required to follow it. Hence some of HR 4472 is rewording in a different context.
The factoid of "100,000 missing" has been floating around since 2003 when the flawed study created that number. A review of past news reports positively shows that the claim is a distortion of the facts especially now in 2006. Certainly there are some who are not registered, but state laws and judicial decisions permit that action. Further, several thousand have completed their registration requirements in one state and were released. Juveniles who have been given a second chance by judges which this bill now reverses. Are these loopholes, no, folks following the law.
I wonder about this claim "The threat to our children grows each day as more unregistered sex offenders move freely within our midst." None of the offenders who have killed little children -were unregistered-, because registration did not exist when most of the crimes occurred. Congress has reached back into history (1989) to gather victims names, and now claims the offenders of those crimes were unregistered. Technically true, but registration didn't exist. A loophole?
Then there is the premise behind this bill, that all crimes were committed by former sex offenders, again not true. A review of the victims mentioned will show some of the offenders had never before committed a sex offense. Also, the Department of Justice statistics (1997) shows that more sex offenses are committed by non sex offenders released from prison than there are by sex offenders released from prison. All of these facts have been ignored.
Common sense: To me it is common sense to read the statistics generated by the Department of Justice and one would learn that sex offenders do not do it again and again and again as one House member claims. However, one must dedicate time to read those statistics. Locking up all sex offenders is not the way, unless one wants to break the bank, incarceration is costly. Further, the inherent criminal code mandate says, when the sentence ends a person is to be released. Why should the House not want to follow that mandate? It is common sense.
Another Member claims "Rehabilitation Doesn't Work," well maybe he ought to tell the US Supreme court. The court in McKUNE, WARDEN, et al. v. LILE, held that, "States have a vital interest in rehabilitating convicted sex offenders. Therapists and correctional officers widely agree that clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sex offenders to manage their impulses and in this way reduce recidivism. See U. S. Dept. of Justice, Nat. Institute of Corrections, A Practitioner's Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender xiii (1988) ("[T]he rate of recidivism of treated sex offenders is fairly consistently estimated to be around 15%," whereas the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated (not a fact) to be as high as 80%. "Even if both of these figures are exaggerated, there would still be a significant difference between treated and untreated individuals"). ..." Some Members of the House feel they know more than the Court. It is common sense to me to follow the Court.
|
One Member says, "all this legislation does is it combines three bills that the House already debated and passed but which got stalled in the other body." It is true that HR 3132 was debated and has been morphed into HR 4472. However, how do we explain this Member's comment, "Additionally, I feel that it is important to have consistency not only with a national registry, but also in how offenders are classified. Currently each State classifies offenders differently according to the risk that they pose to the community. The result is inconsistent and unreliable classifications across state lines. I was pleased that the chairman saw the need to address this issue, and I appreciate him working with me to include a provision to study the merits of a national risk-based classification system that could be integrated into the national sex offender database," referring to HR 4815 (Intro: 2-28). Then there is HR 4905 (Intro: 3-8) and HR 4732 (Intro: 3-8) and HR 4894 (Intro: ??) and HR 4883 (Intro: ??) mentioned in Transcript and all were referred to the House Judiciary Committee. None have been debated by the Full House.
These may be very good bills but the principles of Democratic process say, our Representatives have the right to have a say on them. If the Judiciary Committee to which they were referred, does not pass them, then they die. However, if they are passed by the Committee they go to the House floor for debate not into a bill that is heard under the "Suspension of the Rules." That subverts the process!
This is particularly disturbing because these too subvert the Democratic process. Absolute unreviewable constitutional powers is transferred to an Administrative employee, the US Attorney General? This wrong this shows a complete disrespect for the rights of those who must register under these laws.
Maybe that is what one Member meant when he said this "So to those members of the Iraqi National Assembly who may happen to be observing this, I think there is a very important point we need to make: please don't try this at home. We are trying to instill others in the world to be democratic. The President's inaugural address noted that we are going to bring democracy. Is this what you mean by teaching people to follow democratic procedures, Madam Speaker?
| The Red on Yellow Coded Text: |
While one Member had this to say about the removed Hate Crimes bill, "One cannot fully address the issues of crime reduction and child safety without acknowledging the terrorizing impact hate-motivated violence has in our society, especially in subjecting groups of individuals to a debilitating state of fear for their safety and security. Hate crimes reduction is violent crime reduction, and it is about keeping millions of Americans, including children, safe from hate-motivated violence." Maybe that description sounds like it is speaking about registered sex offenders and their families, and that is why the Hate Crimes bill was stripped from HR 4472? Sex offenders, because of these laws, could be the next class added to that bill!
New or further punishment! Recently the Center for Disease Control, through a high school questionnaire, learned that 46.7% of students are already engaging in sexual behaviors. If caught, are these all to be tomorrow's registered predatory sex offenders? There must be a better way!
The Saddest Part of This Bill:
The bill recognizes that there are victims but the bill does not look at how they became victims. The bill operates under the false premise that ONLY former offenders cause sex offenses, new victims. That is exactly what was said in 1994 and that Megan's law would solve that problem. Have Megans' laws' logic of tracking 100% solved the problem? So, HR 4472 is the answer, lets continue to track 100% of former offenders. How many times must Congress fall over the same rock before they get the point?
Tracking 100% is stupid! Prevention is smart! Where is the prevention in HR 4472? Anger is a terrible thing, it clouds vision.
There is no safety in sound bites and slogans. To solve a problem you must address the needs of both sides of the equation, victims and offenders! Ignore either and you will never solve the problem.
GPS Monitoring Devices: ‘They Can Cut It Off and Leave’ GPS is being mandated by HR 4472, more Public Servants will be needed to monitor this! |
Ted Koppel had this to say on Megans' laws: "Good laws are almost never produced in the cauldron of public passion. The fact of the matter is that when we are angry, when our primary motive is punishment, we are impulsive and very rarely smart. The Sicilians have a wonderful line which captures the essence of that: "Revenge," they say, "is a dessert best eaten cold." Passing a piece of legislation with a particular victim or, for that matter, criminal in mind is bound to prove less than satisfactory over the long haul.
Megan's Law may be trying to do too much. So much, in fact, that it's turning out to be unenforceable. That's neither fair to the convicted sex offender who's done his time and now has his sickness under control, nor is it providing any real protection to the most vulnerable among us. It needs to be fixed on both counts." Ted Koppel, ABC Nightline, 2-5-04 Nightline: Address Unknown: Well-Intentioned Legislation Doesn't Always Produce Good Laws!" eAdvocate News & Noteworthy © Copyright 2006 - All Rights Reserved
To link back to this Commentary: http://www.oocities.org/voicism/n-010.html#a |
|
| Professionals who have already said they are against, or have concerns with, the principles of HR 3132 The Child Safety Act of 2005 |
We strongly dissent from H.R. 3132. While we agree with the legislation's stated objective of tackling the problem of violence against children, in particular violent offenses committed by sexual offenders, it does so in a manner that trammels the Constitution beyond the justifications underlying the bill itself. Specifically, the legislation would impose unduly harsh and discriminatory mandatory minimum sentences; it would expand the use of the federal death penalty to new offenses; and it would limit habeas corpus review in certain cases, leading to an increase in the number of innocent people being executed or languishing in prison. In addition, the legislation would unwisely treat juvenile offenders on par with adults and would have a disproportionate impact on Native Americans. Multiplying these important substantive issues, we are also concerned that many provisions of the bill are being rushed through Committee without adequate debate, consideration or consultation.
Among the professionals who have opposed, or have expressed serious concerns with H.R. 3132 are scientific researchers, treatment professionals, and child advocates, including:
American Civil Liberties Union;
Lucy Berliner, Harborview Center for Sexual Assault & Traumatic Stress;
Barbara L. Bonner, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center;
Mark Chaffin, Ph.D., Professor and Director of Research, Center on Child Abuse and Neglect;
David Finkelhor, Ph.D., Director, Crimes against Children Research Center;
William N. Friedrich, Ph.D, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School;
Toni Cavanagh Johnson, Ph.D., Author and Consultant;
Jill Levenson, Ph.D., L.C.S.W., Professor of Human Services, Board of Directors, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers;
Robert E. Longo, MRC; LPC, Sexual Abuse Prevention & Education Resources International;
John E.B. Myers, Professor of Law, University of the Pacific;
|
Steven J. Ondersma, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief, Child Maltreatment: The Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children;
David Prescott, Treatment Assessment Director, Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center;
Benjamin E. Saunders, Ph.D. Professor and Director, Family and Child Program, National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center;
Jane F. Silovsky, Ph.D., Director, Child Sexual Behavior Problem Treatment Program;
Daniel Smith, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Director of Training, National Crime Victims Research & Treatment Center;
Paul Stern, J.D. Board of Directors, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders;
Letter to the House Judiciary Committee
Source: House Report 109-218 - Part 1.
|
eAdvocate News & Noteworthy © Copyright 2006 - All Rights Reserved
To link back to this Commentary: http://www.oocities.org/voicism/n-010.html#b |
|
| 3-9-2006 Nation (3-26-06: Should have said "National News"):
U.S. House Passes, under suspension of the rules, HR 4472: Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005 |
.Yesterday I was witness to the new Democratic method of passing bills in the US House, using a method called "Suspension of the Rules." A method, to which I believe it was a man from Massachusetts commented, if there are any people from Iraq watching "Don't do this at home."
He was RIGHT! As Tony the Tiger would say, all I could liken it too was a Kangaroo Court. It goes something like this, only a few members from the US House are present, I think it was around 20, and they are the only ones who vote. There are basically two sides, those for the bill and those against the bill.
They hold debate, more of a complaint session because nothing can be amended, the bill verbiage is LOCKED by the Sponsor and Chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee Rep. Sensenbrenner (WI). Where did the representation by the people go?
Actually I did found the debate interesting because it described how the NEW HR 4472 was constructed. Before getting into that it must be noted that the prior bill (HR 3132) pretty much died in the Senate, and rightfully it should have, it trampled on the very core of the US Constitution.
The title of this bill HR 4472, "Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005" has been coined to allow the combination of two different subject areas (Sex Offenders and Gangs) under the BROAD topic of Children! And, all the provisions of the old HR 3132 were brought forward into HR 4472, and made even harsher!
Now, the full House previously, under HR 3132, did get to debate and vote to approve its provisions, but the new bill HR 4472 they were not made privy to so they could debate. Some provisions of the original US House approved HR 3132 (Hate Crimes portion) were removed from the new bill HR 4472, and a few others, for reasons unknown. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the provisions removed, but the full House should get to debate them also. The decision should not be left to ONE person.
The decision on construction of the new HR 4472 was left to one person, and his supporters. Then came the vote, the Yea's and Nay's were heard, and since the Yeas had a bigger group, they won! The US House passed the bill!
Rep. Sensenbrenner did comment about the removal of certain portions of the NEW HR 4472, saying something like, the Senate felt they could not consider the bill with those portions still in HR 4472.
Folks, I've review both bills, the Senate S 1086 and the House 4472, anyone who thinks there is any similarity between them, needs glasses! It is my hope that the Senate upon receiving HR 4472 will also let it die. I said that HR 3132 trampled on the Constitution, well HR 4472 act like it never existed!
One final point, my heart hurts to think that under HR 4472 all juvenile offenders, no matter what their offense if it be sexual in nature, will be treated as an adult be they 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 etc.. Disturbing is, as a victim they remain a child, as an offender they become an adult. Our new democratic way.
eAdvocate
eAdvocate News & Noteworthy © Copyright 2006 - All Rights Reserved
To link back to this Commentary: http://www.oocities.org/voicism/n-010.html#d |
3-5-2006: Whats happening in Congress on Sex Offender legislation, specifically HR 3132 and HR 4472?
HR 4472 Will be in the US House on March 8! Remember to ask your Representatives to VOTE NO! |
Throughout 2005 Congress introduced legislation concerning sex offender issues. Dozens of bills, following the high profile murders of 11 children between 2002 and 2005 caused all this to come to a head! However, in a similar 4-year period, 2000 to 2003 there were 5,600 Child Fatalities and there is no resulting legislation! Soon another Special Report is forthcoming on that issue.
HOUSE ACTIONS HR 3132:
6-30-2005: Rep. Sensenbrenner introduces HR 3132 which is an Omnibus type bill, a bill which covers many topics, and includes most of the other bills sitting in Congress that had already been introduced but not yet passed. Titled "The Child Safety Act." A neat little package, in reality a bad bill!
The bill is sent to the House Judiciary Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. On 9-9-2005, just over two months later, the Committees are finished with their work and send the bill to the House floor. If this bill was given anything but a cursory review I'd be surprised. The Judiciary Committee received many objections to the bill (See the GREEN story) but all were dismissed and the bill went to the House floor.
9-14-2005: The House votes on the bill (371 Yea, 52 Nays, 10 Skipped Out) and passes it. That day there were 25 amendments made to the bill, it went from bad to worse. In one day everything occurred. Is it any wonder why the Professionals who objected to the bill said, it wasn't given proper consideration. (CLICK on CRS SUMMARY and just look at all the Amendments cover)
9-15-2005: The House having passed the bill sends it to the Senate for their consideration. The Senate gives it to their Judiciary Committee and it dies there, as it should have.
Interesting facts about the bill: A) 21 of the 88 Sponsors became Sponsors 2-days before the vote. Guess they didn't want their constituents to think they didn't support the Child Safety Act; B) The Act only gathered 88 Sponsors in all out of 433 House Members; C) 4 of the Sponsors of the bill, voted against the passage of the bill at the end: Norwood (GA); Price (GA); Souder (IN); Westmoreland (GA). One Sponsor did not vote at all: Royce (CA).
The bill went to the floor of the House at 11:16 AM and all was said and done by 3:40 PM that day. So how much consideration was given to Amendments, by Members who did not present the Amendment? I also wonder what the reasons were that caused 52 Members to vote against the bill. That would make a great story, especially when 3 of the Nay votes were Sponsors from the same State: Georgia. What is it we do not know? | HOUSE ACTIONS HR 4472:
12-8-2005: Rep. Sensenbrenner introduces HR 4472 which is an Omnibus type bill, a bill which covers many topics, but as introduced its focus was Gang Violence. Tookie Williams had been in the spotlight for most of December 2005 due to his execution on 12-12-2005. His case is famous for its attachment to "GANG VIOLENCE."
Apparently the title of this Act HR 4472, "Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005" has been coined to allow the combination of two different subject areas (Sex Offenders and Gangs) under the BROAD topic of Children! Hence, all the provisions of the old HR 3132 have been brought forward into this newer Act. Probably because HR 3132 died in the Senate, and it is unlikely that Senators will not want to vote for Prevention of Gang Violence. One must learn how politics is played.
Note: Of the 88 Sponsors of HR 3132, only 34 of them now sponsor HR 4472. One Member who voted against HR 3132, is now sponsoring HR 4472: Westmoreland (GA).
There isn't much more that can be said about HR 4472 because there haven't been any published Congressional actions. One thing can be said, this bill is worse than HR 3132, because more controls have been placed on registered sex offenders in the community.
There was a "Rally in Support of Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act (H.R. 4472)" on 2-28-2006, then there is this report "Death of [Child Safety] bill in the Senate that protects children is not the last we’ll hear of the Act, and it points out that HR 4472 makes "Failure to Register" a felony. Certainly that is not watering it down.
In that article, again is mentioned a FACTOID, that 100,000 sex offenders are missing. The truth of that matter is, that the original research which claimed that fact (Now a Factoid) was flawed and did not consider or ask the states all the questions that should have been asked.
This week HR 4472 will again be considered by the House where, we guess, it will again be passed without much ado. Hopefully the Senate will also be as astute as they have been in the past about HR 3132 (masked now as HR 4472), and let it die, again and again and again! |
Ted Koppel had this to say on Megans' laws: "Good laws are almost never produced in the cauldron of public passion. The fact of the matter is that when we are angry, when our primary motive is punishment, we are impulsive and very rarely smart. The Sicilians have a wonderful line which captures the essence of that: "Revenge," they say, "is a dessert best eaten cold." Passing a piece of legislation with a particular victim or, for that matter, criminal in mind is bound to prove less than satisfactory over the long haul.
Megan's Law may be trying to do too much. So much, in fact, that it's turning out to be unenforceable. That's neither fair to the convicted sex offender who's done his time and now has his sickness under control, nor is it providing any real protection to the most vulnerable among us. It needs to be fixed on both counts." Ted Koppel, ABC Nightline, 2-5-04 Nightline: Address Unknown: Well-Intentioned Legislation Doesn't Always Produce Good Laws!"
eAdvocate News & Noteworthy © Copyright 2006 - All Rights Reserved
To link back to this Commentary: http://www.oocities.org/voicism/n-010.html#c |
|
Legal Issues & Court Cases Affectine Sex Offenders ©
News & Noteworthy: Articles Concerning Sex offender Issues ©
Beyond the Abuse: A Personal Recovery Program ©
Copyright ©2006 L. Arthur M.Parrish. All rights reserved.Privacy policy
|
|
